Page 2510 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We are unlike any other jurisdiction in that the bulk of our long day care centres are actually within the non-profit sector. Our community groups manage the bulk of our long day care centres. The bulk of those are in government-owned buildings and are heavily subsidised in the rents that they pay. A couple of years ago, when we were looking at cost, we did a survey around the long day care centres and tried to see the cost variables between private providers that were in their own buildings or paying commercial rents and the community providers that were in government buildings and paying supported rent. The cost difference was minimal. I think there was less than $2 in the cost difference between private providers in their own buildings or paying their own rents, full commercial rents, and the non-government sector, our community organisations that do a great job in supported accommodation, so to speak.
There are costs that are inherent in the workforce, and that is the point that I believe Ms Berry was going to, that it is absolutely unreasonable to consider that we would put our young ones into an early education and care environment and not have a notion of the quality of the care that was being provided or of the quality and the training that sit within the workforce that provides that care. They are recognised already as being undervalued; many would say underpaid. Many would say there has certainly been a very strong effort through the big steps campaign to get fair, professional wages for the people that work in this industry. And I support their efforts.
When we do look at cost, we have limited ability, particularly as a government. We have pulled all the levers we can in land release, in building the bricks and mortar, in supporting the workforce by scholarships for training. The providers have to pay the base salaries. And if we are looking to say here that we can pay them any less or ask them to look after any more children, then what are we saying? We are saying that we will not have an eye to quality or not have an eye to the ratios that are so important for quality care of children.
I would welcome debate about how we can look at cost and availability. I will continue to work with those that are interested and make sure that our land release can keep up to the demands of providers that want to come into this place. We will continue to invest in our own bricks and mortar and expand the places where we can have that influence. We will continue to invest in workforce support.
The other side of this equation is the federal government and the contributions that they quite critically need to make to this. Today we had a motion that was seeking that federal funding continue for universal access to preschool. That, I would consider, was not voted against. So I have drafted a letter to the relevant ministers saying that there was support of this Assembly for that funding to continue.
But we do need to look at what are the constraints and what can we do to make sure that this continues. I think this government is on the record on this. It is recognised by many within the sector that we probably are ahead of the game compared to other jurisdictions and the effort and the resources that we directly invest into early education and care to make sure the availability is there and that the cost for the levers that we can pull on it are there.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video